Meth or P related - it goes here, please.

[Nice]

Either / or applies.

Ideally you will use all 10 tests within one property; but you could take a single wipe throughout the whole property to get an indication. You would still need to follow up with a more scientific test if you get a positive result, and this is where the real money goes.

[Glenn]

we need better laws to go after dangerous dog owners

I did mutter to myself about the owner of the dog that bit the seven year old.
Here was the photo of an owner saying perhaps dogs like this should be banned but at the time of the photo he had still not even cleaned up his poor little nephew's blood off the floor.
So yes we need to ban dangerous dog owners like that charming fellow.
What is the bet he is a HNZ tenant.

[Wayne]

So yes we need to ban dangerous dog owners like that charming fellow.

Dangerous dog owner or owner of dangerous dog?

[Wayne]

but you could take a single wipe throughout the whole property to get an indication. You would still need to follow up with a more scientific test if you get a positive result, and this is where the real money goes.

Keeps the cost down and is what I believe most 1st tests are - a couple of swabs for the property and if positive spend real money and get a 'fuller' test done.

[skid]

So I would imagine a couple tests per flat would do it--not to bad economically. (all hypothetical as they are out of stock) good little money spinner they have got there.

[Nick from Auckland]

Will the "do it yourself" tests stand up in TT?

[Peter Griffin]

Might stand up at TT?? but I would document the process by photographing you doing the self test, and photograph the result. Still it's and ambiguous process an any decent lawyer/solicitor would find holes in what's been done.

Even if it does stand up in TT your insurance company may poke holes in a "do it yourself". TT has the legal weight of a feather. Receiving payment from someone whose damaged your property with meth may be a 'pipe dream'. Payment for an event from your insurance is what counts. I now pay someone, whose certified and accepted by my insurance company to test. I have also stated in my Tenancy contracts that we will do a meth test on the three monthly inspection. Sadly I'm hoping that this creates a paranoid feeling for any potential tenants who are meth users and then they don't sign. I have got to know every neighbour surrounding all my properties and talk with at least one on every inspection. I instantly act if the tenant has sublet to another boarder and issue a 14 day notice.

The knowledge base in New Zealand is limited. Most companies testing and cleaning have been around for only a couple of years.

I'm of the opinion, in the case of Meth, that prevention is better then cure!

P.G

P.S I'm looking at meth as another hurdle but certainly not a deterrent to still enjoy property.

[Laney]

That deterrent factor I think is a biggie! If you tell a new tenant it's been tested and all clear but flag it also by saying that (at the very least) it will be tested at the end of the tenancy as well, then they'll know in advance they would be mad to go down that path. (Although you'd be mad to start smoking P as well, so perhaps the lack of brains is the main issue!) I do know someone who has those meth "sniffers" in the house, because they didn't want to discover the damage - after the event. Rather nip it in the bud before damage really occurred. They're not cheap either (I don't think?) but would they perhaps compare fairly well against doing tests every 3 months? C.

[Wayne]

The knowledge base in New Zealand is limited. Most companies testing and cleaning have been around for only a couple of years.

I was talking to someone the other day about this - how the heck did they become 'experts'?
What is the basis of any 'expert' opinion these cleaning companies give?

[drelly]

Ideally you will use all 10 tests within one property; but you could take a single wipe throughout the whole property to get an indication. You would still need to follow up with a more scientific test if you get a positive result, and this is where the real money goes.

Note that if you use one swab in multiple locations, you would also be multiplying the level of contamination in the test result (if any).

[Nice]

Yes, but this is only an indicative test anyway; if any presence found then the plan is to go to the next level, which is the more expensive one.

[Wayne]

Yes, but this is only an indicative test anyway; if any presence found then the plan is to go to the next level, which is the more expensive one.

that is the 'normal' way of doing it.
Is there any?
If yes then do detailed test to find out how much and where.

[chrisrussell]

Tenant awarded $7500 for contaminated house (paid by the owner)

Did everyone see this article?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11620699

The background is that the owner bought a house vacant possession (empty), contracted us to manage the property.
We find tenants, who after a number of months start getting sick and have a few late night calls to their door. Tenants get suspicious, talk to neighbours and police, who confirm it is a drug house (not cooking). Old tenants (under the old owner, who managed it himself), smoked P regularly.
We get the place tested, and is positive and unsafe. Tenants vacate, and take the owner/us to the tribunal.
Tribunal rules we acted quickly in testing and releasing the tenant, landlord and ourselves had no prior knowledge. However house was still presented to tenants in an unsafe manner (even though it was not known to be), owner has to pay $4000 costs and $3500 rent rebate.
Owner then spent another $30,000-$40,000 decontaminating, plus 3 months down time.

Owner's insurance policy didn't cover tenants from before this owner purchased it.

This a landmark case, and can be still be applied if you have current tenants that you manage who are smoking P, that you are unaware of. If they move out, and the next tenant moves in, they can get rent rebate and costs from you.

The only way to mitigate against this sort of thins happening is to P test between every tenant.

[chrisrussell]

No matter how you interpret the Heath and Safety legislation, the recent ruling sums it up. Tenants awarded $7500 (to be paid by owner) for contaminated house even where the owner and property manager had no idea that it was contaminated.

[north shore]

Can anyone recommend a company who does testing on the north shore please?
Bit dubious about it as we viewed a house for sale last year, they had to delay the auction as someone had had a test done by one company which was positive, then the vendors had another company test it and it came back negative.
So who do you believe?